In a report telecast by Pakistan Television with regard to the consultative meeting of PML-N, the party observed that the remarks about the most popular leader of the country in the detailed judgment did not come up to the standard of the court language.

According to the opinion of the legal and constitutional experts, by announcing this detailed judgment on the appeal at this very moment, it seemed like that an effort had been made to influence the lower courts.

The news report said that a strong worded judgment about Muhammad Nawaz Sharif could not be a source of pride for any court of law across the world. This decision was an unfortunate example of envy , spite, anger and provocation from the very beginning till the end.

In the judgment, the question of ‘preceptor’ had been raised by taking support from ‘poetry’ but the nation knew that they were the ‘preceptors’ alone who created Pakistan and rendered sacrifices for its strength and safety.

Those were the ‘preceptors’ who made Pakistan a nuclear power, faced detentions, disqualifications, exiles and were hanged to death. “So it is not the question of ‘preceptorship’ but of ‘justice.”

The news report mentioned that every Pakistani knows as to why the caravans were looted during the last 70 years and who robbed those caravans. The caravans were robbed because oaths of allegiance were taken on the hands of thugs.

Doctrine of necessity was invented to justify ‘looting of looters’ and verdicts were issued in their favour to play with the Constitution.

So it is the question spanning over 70 years is of justice and not of the preceptorship. Preceptors are facing the courts and sentences even today but what about the looters.

Nawaz Sharif and his family acted upon the court verdicts without any hesitation but a language being used by his political rivals during rallies was intolerable.

The report mentioned that struggle of Nawaz Sharif for sacred institution of judiciary was part of history and PML-N would continue to play the role for an independent judiciary that was harbinger for protection of the Constitution.

However, the sacred stature of judiciary could not be allowed for anybody's character assassination on the pretext of ‘independence of judiciary.’